A total putdown...of me!!!!

This is what you need to impress your Bait man. My camera is bigger than yours...
347921.jpg
 
The whole thing was nuts. But not as big deal as I am making it out to be. I am a big boy I can handle it but that never happened in my Reuters days in early 80's when 2 F2's were hung around my neck. Ouch!!
 
I would not take it seriously, even the hired, if he was paid, didn't know what he was doing. Easy for me to say, but you should have taken the best photos you could. Then told the owner that you had them, but this time he would have to pay for them.
 
And you didn't even put the NEX in continuous mode and raffle off a bunch of clicks? The sound of that shutter screeching at 7fps tends to change people's attitide towards what they perceive as another ''holiday snapshot camera''..
 
Akiva.

I find myself in a similar situation often - and I have an M9.

My advice is... take the shot anyway.

Send them a copy.

How else can the layperson be educated?

Big does not mean better.
 
Well, you can't fault people for their lack of photographic knowledge. That's why they hire a pro.

A while ago I did a small job for a shop photographing some items for their christmas catalogue on a white seamless. Pay was decent for a day's work but the budget was minimal so I decided to just use my Canon 5DII instead of renting a digital back.
The guy who did the layout asks me how much megapixel the files are and I tell him 21. He says "Oh...only 21? I thought it was more.". And here's the funny part: Final print size of the items in the catalogue was between 1x1 and 2x3 inches.
I had to explain to him that unless he wanted to go over A3 21mp would be plenty and that I would be happy to rent the 60mp back if they added $500 to the budget 🙂
 
Jamie123 said:
Well, you can't fault people for their lack of photographic knowledge. That's why they hire a pro.

A while ago I did a small job for a shop photographing some items for their christmas catalogue on a white seamless. Pay was decent for a day's work but the budget was minimal so I decided to just use my Canon 5DII instead of renting a digital back.
The guy who did the layout asks me how much megapixel the files are and I tell him 21. He says "Oh...only 21? I thought it was more.". And here's the funny part: Final print size of the items in the catalogue was between 1x1 and 2x3 inches.
I had to explain to him that unless he wanted to go over A3 21mp would be plenty and that I would be happy to rent the 60mp back if they added $500 to the budget 🙂
Click to expand...

Food photography, 20 years ago, was 'always' done on 5x4 inch or even 10x8 inch. Eventually, I persuaded several publishers that actually, 56x72mm (Linhof 6x7) was overkill for anything below A3, and OK in most cases for A2.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Food photography, 20 years ago, was 'always' done on 5x4 inch or even 10x8 inch. Eventually, I persuaded several publishers that actually, 56x72mm (Linhof 6x7) was overkill for anything below A3, and OK in most cases for A2.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Well I do see the point in using a camera with movements for still life and shooting sheet film might also have some advantages. I'd say even at A5 there's a considerable difference in 'look' between 6x7 and 4x5, let alone 8x10.
Even if it is overkill I'm happy to use a digital back for small print sizes but if someone asks me to shoot 25 items in a day and keep the budget minimal I sure am not going to bring out a digital back and a view camera.
But like I said, it's not really their fault. To that guy 21 was just a number and he couldn't really put that into relation to print sizes. He might have a small p&s that boasts a 10mp label so it's understandable that he would think 21 is not that much.l
 
Jamie123 said:
Well I do see the point in using a camera with movements for still life and shooting sheet film might also have some advantages. I'd say even at A5 there's a considerable difference in 'look' between 6x7 and 4x5, let alone 8x10.
Even if it is overkill I'm happy to use a digital back for small print sizes but if someone asks me to shoot 25 items in a day and keep the budget minimal I sure am not going to bring out a digital back and a view camera.
But like I said, it's not really their fault. To that guy 21 was just a number and he couldn't really put that into relation to print sizes. He might have a small p&s that boasts a 10mp label so it's understandable that he would think 21 is not that much.l
Click to expand...

Who said I wasn't using movements?

And if you're shooting step-by-step preparations...

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Who said I wasn't using movements?

And if you're shooting step-by-step preparations...

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I understood you correctly when you said you were using 6x7 on a Linhof. What I meant was in my case where I was using a DSLR I would've seen the point of using a camera with movements but not for that budget. I could've rented a couple of T/S lenses but even that would've been overkill considering I just needed sharp thumbnail sized images.

As for step-by-step preparations, you're right, in this case roll film is much more convenient. I really don't know much about food photography. I work as an assistant for a still life photographer and usually we do 1-2 shots a day if they are different set-ups. Although these days with digital even a single shot often requires 20-40 frames. Mind you, not because of elaborate comps but because we can't stop down past f16 due to diffraction so the image has to be captured in slices. Add bracketing to that and you're easily up to 40 frames.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom